BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

509 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Bogus Purchasesclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,367Delhi509Jaipur177Ahmedabad139Karnataka100Kolkata81Pune78Bangalore72Surat63Indore49Chennai46Chandigarh38Hyderabad38Calcutta34Rajkot32Raipur29Amritsar26Allahabad20Nagpur17Patna12Lucknow10Jodhpur9Agra8Visakhapatnam7Cochin2Guwahati2Ranchi2Cuttack2Telangana1Jabalpur1Gauhati1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Addition to Income60Section 271(1)(c)53Section 143(3)32Section 6832Disallowance29Penalty29Section 14724Section 69A24Section 153A24

DCIT, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SAHIL VACHANI, DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2604/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shriavdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17)

For Appellant: S/Shri Anuj Garg & Narpat Singh, Sr.DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Rohan Khare & Priyam
Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

bogus claim, levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 1 is justified. 19. I find that while imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the AO did not categorically mention the Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act though he mentioned that the explanation offered by the assessee was not found

NIRALA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 509 · Page 1 of 26

...
Section 13222
Section 14822
Bogus Purchases20
ITA 3155/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

bogus expenses; Rs8,00,000 that was part of the surrendered sum of Rs 10 crores but had not been reflected as additional business income against any of the companies of the group; and Rs 8,21,575 as disallowance u/s 14A. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA and 271(l)(c). While adjudicating the appeal filed

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

ITA 3135/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

bogus expenses; Rs8,00,000 that was part of the surrendered sum of Rs 10 crores but had not been reflected as additional business income against any of the companies of the group; and Rs 8,21,575 as disallowance u/s 14A. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA and 271(l)(c). While adjudicating the appeal filed

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

ITA 3136/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

bogus expenses; Rs8,00,000 that was part of the surrendered sum of Rs 10 crores but had not been reflected as additional business income against any of the companies of the group; and Rs 8,21,575 as disallowance u/s 14A. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA and 271(l)(c). While adjudicating the appeal filed

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

ITA 3531/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

bogus expenses; Rs8,00,000 that was part of the surrendered sum of Rs 10 crores but had not been reflected as additional business income against any of the companies of the group; and Rs 8,21,575 as disallowance u/s 14A. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA and 271(l)(c). While adjudicating the appeal filed

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

ITA 3137/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

bogus expenses; Rs8,00,000 that was part of the surrendered sum of Rs 10 crores but had not been reflected as additional business income against any of the companies of the group; and Rs 8,21,575 as disallowance u/s 14A. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA and 271(l)(c). While adjudicating the appeal filed

SHARSH FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 878/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia.Y. : 2005-06 M/S Sharsh Finance & Acit, Circle 18(1), Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. New Delhi 16L, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001 (Pan: Aahcs1410L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Sh. N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

purchase and sale of shares and there was no relevance for travel to Singapore, Bangkok, Rome, London etc. by one of its Directors. The expenditure on foreign travel can by no means be considered as business expenditure. Further, no evidence has been furnished to prove the purpose of foreign travel to justify expenses. AO further observed that

DCIT, GHAZIABAD vs. SHRI ALOK GARG, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 3386/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 3386/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vs Sh. Alok Garg, Circle-1, R-11/125, Raj Nagar, Gyhaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aarpg7151K Assessee By : Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.06.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 21.03.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A), Aligarh.

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

bogus nor any contrary confirmation from any 3 Alok Garg creditor has been brought on record. Purchases are reflected in audited P & L A/c and are comparable with purchases in earlier years assessed u/s 143(3). 4. Assessee made labour payments for semi skilled and skilled labour in Himachal Pradesh and hilly and tough terrains at prevailing market rate

PRATEEK GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. PR, CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 785/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Prateek Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201001 Pan Atbpg8602J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

bogus claim of exemption on penny stock.” 11. Accordingly the Ld. Pr.CIT directed the Ld. AO to re-decide the penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide show cause notice dated 05.12.2017. He also directed the Ld. AO to re-compute the income tax and interest payable as per provisions of section 115BBE

SANDEEP GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. PR, CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 784/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Sandeep Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201009 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

bogus claim of exemption on penny stock.” 7. Accordingly, the Ld. Pr. CIT directed the Ld. AO to redecide the penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide show cause notice dated 29.12.2017. He also directed the Ld. AO to recompute income tax and interest payable as per provisions of section 115BBE

SH. SANJAY DALMIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3795/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

271(l)(b) of the Act was initiated and imposed. In this regard, details submissions have been made hereinabove that the revenue could not legally demand any such consent form u/s 142(1) of the Act from the appellant and thus, the cause of action of initiating such penalty proceedings itself was unlawful and totally void ab-initio

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SPL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4927/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Ms. Anima Bernwal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Gupta, Adv
Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1 )(c) of the Act in the facts of the present case where the claim of the assessee that the receipts were capital in nature was rejected and the receipts were held to be revenue in nature and hence taxable. Upholding the order of the CIT (Appeals) we dismiss the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue

ASSOCIATED MACHINERY CORP. PVT. LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 4735/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

u/s 271 (1)( c) in respect of additional -p le offered by assessee if the explanation offered by assessee for not including such amount in the return is not found acceptable.Commissioner of Income tax v. D.K.B. & Co. [20021 (Ker)-243/6l8. The assessee agreed to certain additions proposed to be made by the AO towards bogus hundi credits

KARAMJIT SINGH DHANJAL,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: : Smt. Diva Singh & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. V.R. Sachdev, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT/DR
Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

purchased from his father does not fulfill the condition of long term capital gain, he got his income re-computed from his Chartered Accountant and surrendered the amount of Rs. 21,60,200/- as short term capital gain on sale of property vide letter dated 29-10-2010 and paid the additional taxes and interest totaling

GEORGE KUTTY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3788/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] George Kutty, Vs Dcit, C/O-M/S. Oasis Tours India (P.) Circle-13(1), Ltd., C-40, Middle Circle, Dwarka New Delhi. Sadan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aajpk4005H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 276CSection 68

bogus, it would be treated as a case of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and penalty proceeding would be justified 9. CIT Vs R.M.P. Plasto (P.) Ltd H84 Taxman 372 (SC)/[2009] 313 ITR 397 (SC)/[2009] 227 CTR 635] where Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Confirmed penalty upon assessee for concealment of income under section 271

SANDEEP AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal No

ITA 1777/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sh. Nippun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. S. Yadav, Sr. D.R
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

bogus purchase of Rs. 1,62,26,036/- vide assessment order dated 28/03/2013. A penalty order came to be passed u/s 271

SANDEEP AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal No

ITA 1778/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sh. Nippun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. S. Yadav, Sr. D.R
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

bogus purchase of Rs. 1,62,26,036/- vide assessment order dated 28/03/2013. A penalty order came to be passed u/s 271

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI RAMIT VOHRA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4373/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Kohli, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1 )(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of his income by the assessee. 6. BOGUS PURCHASES

UNICONS INDIA (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5401/DEL/2011[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2016AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & G.D. Agrawal & And & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg Shri Chandra Mohan Gargshri Chandra Mohan Garg Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Dubey
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80H

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, ground No.2 is treated as not pressed and rejected as such. 4. The facts relating to ground No.1 are that the assessee has claimed the purchase of goods of the value of `66,15,000/- from M/s Unifoil Enterprises. The bill of purchases was filed before the Assessing Officer

YUVRAJ AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-27(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 9233/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.9233/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Yubraj Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. Acit C-177, Fateh Nagar, Vs. Circle 27(2) Jail Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccn5302P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)Section 68

u/s 271 (1 )(c) was neither criminal nor quasi criminal in nature. It was a civil liability and therefore, presence of mens rea was not essential. 5.6 Reference can be made to the case of CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. 226 CTR 105 (Del), Where the jurisdictional High Court held that "Even if there is no concealment of income